All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

So it's your testimony that you can't tell us, sir--

Your Honor, I object to continuing to pursue this line.

Sustained.

I just want to ask this one question, your Honor, about his recollection.

I've sustained the scope objection, counsel.

Now, when you were in the foyer area during this period, you saw a number of detectives come in?

I saw detectives come in, yes.

Detective Fuhrman?

I don't recall.

You saw Detective Fuhrman coming in wearing a coat?

Vague as to time.

Rephrase the question.

When you were in the foyer area on your second trip, you saw Detective Fuhrman walk into the--

Based on videotape?

Yes.

Yes.

Well, make a motion to strike just based on videotape.

Overruled.

Now, you testified on redirect examination on the 14th that--

I'm at 22925, line 18.

May I have one moment, your Honor?

Through what? Line 18 through what?

Question and answer.

Just what?

Just the question and answer.

Well, this isn't impeaching.

No. I'm just calling his attention to his testimony.

Proceed.

It's irrelevant.

Were you asked by Mr. Goldberg--recall being asked by MR. GOLDBERG: "Question: Did you ever say anything--make a point to say anything about the vial?" This is to Andrea Mazzola. "Answer: No. "Question: Did you have any reason to? "Answer: No."

That's correct.

All right. Now, you're saying that you had no reason to tell Andrea Mazzola anything about receiving the blood vial?

Not making specific mention of it, no.

She was keeping the notes on--inventorying objects--items that you received?

Yes.

Did you regard the blood sample of the Defendant as an important piece of evidence?

Calls for speculation as to important piece of evidence.

Overruled.

It was a piece of evidence.

You didn't regard it as a particularly important piece of evidence?

That's vague, "Particularly important."

Did you regard it as an important piece of evidence?

Still vague, your Honor.

Counsel, it's not a necessary question at this point.

All right. Was there any other piece of evidence that you collected that you didn't mention to Andrea Mazzola on June 13th?

Irrelevant.

Overruled.

I don't recall any.

When you--after you received the blood vial, were you concerned that it get back to the laboratory in good shape?

Yes.

Now, when you walked--you didn't have anything in your hands when you walked out the second time from Rockingham?

In the second videotape, no.

You could have carried it?

Yes.

And the vial is breakable, isn't it?

Yes.

If it broke, it could have spilled, blood could have spilled and been potentially dangerous to your health?

Potentially.

And you saw in the videotape where Miss Mazzola is carrying that plastic bag and it's swinging and hitting shrubs and other things as she's walking to the truck?

Sustained.

Now, was there--did you have a reason to keep this a secret from her?

Well, assumes facts not in evidence.

Sustained.

Is there a reason that you did not tell her that you were putting a blood vial in a trash bag for her to carry out of the residence?

No.

Is it the custom and practice at LAPD to give important fragile items of evidence to Criminalists in trash bags and not tell them what they're carrying?

Argumentative as to important fragile items.

Sustained.

Is it your custom and practice to give fragile items of evidence to Criminalists in trash bags and not tell them what they're carrying?

Your Honor--

Sustained. Sustained.

May we approach, your Honor?

No. Sit down. Proceed.

Now, was there a reason that you did not--the envelope says "Refrigerate" on it, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

But it's your testimony that you now have an independent recollection that you took the plastic bag containing the envelope and put it on--just left it on a table in the evidence processing room?

Beyond the scope of redirect.

Sustained.

How many other times in your career, sir, have you collected items that are supposed to be refrigerated and just left them on tables overnight in plastic bags?

I don't have any specific recollection to that.

Now, you recall during cross-examination that you saw a videotape of your bare hand grasping a paper object?

Yes.

And it's still your position that that was not the envelope containing prescription glasses?

Yes, it is.

I'm sorry?

That's my position.

That's your position. And you did not notice that segment of the videotape before you testified at trial in the tapes that you were reviewing?

I didn't make any particular notice of it.

Uh-huh. So when you were asked whether or not you had grasped the envelope in your bare hand on cross-examination, you said it didn't happen.

Wait a minute. That's argument.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Is that a--are you saying that's a pad, not the envelope?

Misstates the testimony.

Sustained. Rephrase the question.

Is it your position now, sir, that what's depicted in that videotape is not the envelope, but a pad?

Assumes a fact not in evidence.

Sustained.

What is it?

And after you saw that videotape of your hand on the item, you said after examining it carefully that you were even more sure in your mind that it is not the envelope because, "We did not start picking up evidence until well after the Coroners were gone."

Beyond the scope of redirect.

Sustained.

Your Honor, he asked questions about the Coroners on redirect examination.

Sustained.

Now, after you saw videotape showing the Coroner's present at the scene when Miss Mazzola was picking up the hat and the glove, you realized that you could not claim you were--that it wasn't the envelope based on the fact that the Coroners weren't there?

Unintelligible.

Overruled on that basis.

Also beyond the scope of redirect, argumentative.

Overruled. Argumentative it is. Sustained.

You were shown a segment of videotape which depicted the Coroners being present when Miss Mazzola was collecting the hat and the glove?

Same objection. Beyond the scope.

Your Honor, I--he asked several questions about this.

Overruled. Quickly.

I'm trying.

Yes, I did see videotape of that.

And when you saw that videotape--withdrawn. Now, on redirect examination--

I'm at page 23045.

Did you--

May I have a second, your Honor?

Yes.

33045, counsel?

Uh-huh.

Now, in redirect examination, were you asked these questions and did you give these answers?

This is improper.

Calling his attention to his testimony.

Overruled.

"Question: When you were involved in the collection process, were you trying to keep track of where the Coroner's representatives were or if they were even there? "Answer: No. "Question: To this day, do you have an independent recollection of them being there? "Answer: No independent recollection, no. "Question: Do you have any reason to believe that they were there other than the one clip of videotape that you saw with what appears to be the pants leg of one of the Coroner's representatives in it? "Answer: No. Only the videotape shows that they're there." Recall giving that answer?

Yes.

So you're now saying, sir, that you're sure that that isn't the envelope?

Yes.

And you're sure because it is not your practice to touch objects with your bare hand?

Your Honor, this has been gone over. Asked and answered.

Overruled.

It's not my practice to touch bloody items that could be for prints.

So your certainty with respect to the envelope comes from assuming that you always follow the rules?

Well, it's overbroad as to--

Sustained.

Is it your habit when testifying, sir, to say that you use correct procedures even if you do not have an independent recollection of what you did?

And sometimes you testify to what you generally do without saying, "This is what I generally do." You just state it as a fact that you did it?

That's argumentative.

Sustained.

Your Honor, could I have the envelope that is item no. 10?

What evidence item?

Now, you recall on direct examination a videotape of you stuffing the blue gauze pad back in the envelope?

Redirect.

Redirect. I'm sorry.

Yes.

All right. Your Honor, could we have the knife again?

A knife?

Knife, your penknife, scissors? Things are getting more ominous as--

Could you please cut the top of the envelope in the same fashion we did before?

Along the bottom again?

Well, I'll object, it was in the same fashion. I think he was wearing gloves if I recall.

Yes, that's true.

Mrs. Robertson, gloves.

May I approach?

Would you please unseal the top and drop the item on the stand.

Indicating the counter of the witness.

Counter of the witness.

For the record, he just cut along the top I believe--

Just put it as you got it. Now, when you first took it out, it was wrinkled, wasn't it?

Yes, it was.

All right. And it was wrinkled because when you stuffed it into the coin envelope using the scoop method, it became wrinkled in that fashion?

Yes.

All right. But when you first saw that item, when we pulled it out originally, it was just folded over.

Wait a minute. That's irrelevant, how it was when he first saw it.

Overruled.

It was just folded over, wasn't it?

That's because other people had analyzed it since.

Well, I'm only asking you what you just--

Well--

When we--when you first saw the item--

Wait, wait. One person talks at a time here. If I have to instruct another person as to that rule, they'll be sanctions. Thank you. Proceed.

May I make an objection?

Yes, you may.

I object that he be--

Basis.

--allowed to answer--finish his answer.

Proceed.

Finished with your answer?

Yes.

When you first saw that blue item, it was folded?

Yes.

It wasn't wrinkled?

Do you mean, did it have any wrinkles in it or--

Yes. Was it wrinkled in the same fashion as we saw it when you put it on the table just now?

It's vague.

Counsel--wait, wait. Was this piece of evidence analyzed for anything?

Yes.

Your Honor--

Really, this is--

Your Honor--

The jury saw it when it came out, the jury saw it when it went back in. Proceed.

Next question, your Honor.

Would you agree that this item became wrinkled by the method you used to insert it into this coin envelope, the scoop method?

Calls for speculation.

Overruled.

Yes, it was wrinkled by that method.

All right. But when you first took that item out, when you--I showed it to you on cross-examination, it was not wrinkled in that fashion through the scoop method, was it?

It was--

Irrelevant, your Honor.

Overruled.

It was folded.

It was folded.

Your Honor, I'm finished with that.

All right. Mr. Fung, would you return that, please. (The witness complies.)

All right. Mr. Fung has placed it back into the envelope. Proceed.

Now, when you on redirect examination tried scooping it into the envelope, you were trying to do something clever to avoid the inference that Detective Fuhrman had collected that item with gloves on the morning of June 13th?

Sustained. It's argumentative.

When you--did you have any concern when you were testifying with respect to this item that the jury might believe that Detective Fuhrman had gloves in his possession on the afternoon of June--morning of June 13th when he collected that item?

Argumentative.

Overruled.

No.

Let's turn to the Bronco, sir. Show you what's been--People's 197-b.

Now, this is the photograph you were shown on redirect examination?

Yes, it was.

And this is a photograph taken on June 14th?

Yes, it is.

Are these four reddish stains a quarter of an inch long?

From the best of my recollection, no, they're not.

Are these reddish stains that look like brush marks?

They don't appear to be brush marks to me.

When you observed these items on the door sill of the Bronco on June 14th, were they red?

They were reddish.

Sure of that?

Yes.

Do they appear to you to be reddish in this photograph?

When I look at the monitor, I--in this picture right now, I can't even see the stains.

All right. We've changed the contrast on it.

Well--

Well, now they appear dark.

But not red?

Well, your Honor, this isn't the photograph he was shown.

Overruled.

Do you have the photograph? Show him the photograph.

It's in evidence.

Have you examined the photograph?

Yes.

Does it look red in the photograph?

It looks brown or dark in the photograph.

Gray or black?

It's dark.

Specks of dirt?

It's not a question.

Sustained.

Could it be specks of dirt?

Speculation.

It's vague as to what we're talking about.

Now, on July 6th, Miss Clark told you to go out and look at the Bronco you're testifying to see if there were four red stains on the exterior of the door sill?

She told me to do that at some date prior to that. I don't know--I don't believe it was on the 6th, but I did go out there on the 6th to look for stains that were visible from the exterior.

Well--

Specifically on the driver door.

Didn't she tell you to go out and look at the exterior of the driver door the day before you testified at the preliminary hearing?

It was around that time, but I'm not absolutely sure that it was the day before. It may have been two or three days before.

Have you previously testified that you went out to inspect the Bronco the morning of your testimony of the preliminary hearing which was July 6th?

Yes.

And that you had been told to go out the day before to do it?

Well, transcript, page, line?

Well--try it this way.

Were you informed by Miss Clark that a detective had testified to seeing red stains on the door sill of the Bronco?

She had told me that a detective had told her that stains were visible from the outside of the Bronco.

Four red stains on the exterior of the door sill?

She didn't tell me how many.

Well, cross-examination, page 22410, line 22.

May I have a moment, your Honor?

Certainly.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. And keep the book there, please, because we're going to go to another page.

Can you give me lines, counsel?

Well, I'm starting at 22410, line 22.

Ready?

"Question:"

Your Honor, may we approach? I have an objection to this.

Is this foundational?

No. This is--

All right. Let me see you with the Court reporter please.

Well, actually it is foundational. It's got two purposes.

All right.

I'll start first with 22410. he's asked: "Were you informed Detective Fuhrman testified seeing four red stains?" I'm going to go on and going to ask him questions starting at 22406 about the fact that--if you recall, your Honor, he was--then indicated he had trouble with whatever it was for which it was on June 14th and he saw four as opposed to two.

Mr. Goldberg.

On redirect, he picked four.

This is impeaching him with ambiguous minutia. He doesn't say how many here. He just says he had seen them. What does that refer to? One, two, three four? Like most of Mr. Scheck's questions, he has multiple clauses in it. We're informed by Miss Clark that Detective Fuhrman testified to seeing four red stains on the exterior of the door sill. She didn't name Detective Fuhrman by name, but she did say detectives had. It's ambiguous. He's impeaching him by ambiguity. I think--he's on the eighth day of cross-examination. It should be shut down and under 352, some of this should just be cut down.

We're not on the eighth day of cross-examination.

Isn't it? Eighth day of examination.

Your Honor, I'm just going to give the witness--I'm going to inquire--I think I have the right to inquire. He picked four spots now in this photograph, and on cross-examination before, he said, "I have trouble with the number four." I'm going to go through all that with him. and what does concern me, your Honor, is that Miss Clark--we hear at some point--we can hear what she said to him and what he said to her about this whole episode because it seems to me that it's an important issue of credibility that's arisen.

Objection to the first passage is sustained. Overruled as to the second passage.

All right. Thank you, counsel. Proceed.

In this photograph, which is People's 197-b, you identified four items?

Yes.

All right. Now, on cross-examination, on page 22406, line 1, were you asked these questions, did you give these answers?

May I have one moment, your Honor?

Hold on.

May I proceed?

Proceed.

"Question: My question, sir, is it your testimony that you saw four red stains on the exterior of the Bronco door on June 14th, but you thought they were not heavy enough, and therefore you did not direct the photographer to take a picture? Is that what happened? "Answer: I can't--I don't know if there were four or not. I--the number four is the problem with the answer. "Question: You saw three on the exterior of the Bronco on June--"Answer: I don't recall the number. "Question: Are you saying that you saw three red strains on the morning of June 14th?"

Stains.

"Stains on the morning of June 14th? "Answer: No, I'm not saying that. "Are you saying you saw two red stains? "Answer: I do remember that there was either a stain or two stains that were very light along the sill area that I did not collect." Asked those questions, did you give those answers?

Yes.

Now, after the weekend and looking at photographs, you're now prepared to say that 197-b shows four red stains that you saw on the morning of June 14th?

Those are areas that were present that I--well, I don't specifically remember these stains, but I do remember stains present on the vehicle at--in that--in those locations approximately and these are consistent with those areas.

Well, you're telling us that you have an independent recollection of seeing four stains on June 14th?

Misstates the testimony, your Honor.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

You're not saying that?

I'm not saying that.

All right. So basically what you are telling us is that you looked at this photograph and you're now reconstructing the fact that those must be four red stains?

Now, three of the items that you've circled here can only be seen if the door is open?

The two--the very top one and the one to the right, that's correct.

So to see these items, someone would have to open the door of the car?

To see those, yes.

Now, you gave us testimony that the fibers from a carpet can get into the crevices of shoes?

They have a more--yes.

And so if someone has stepped in blood and the shoes are no longer making impressions of bloody shoeprints on cement, when a person steps on fibers, the fibers will go into the crevices of the shoe?

It's possible.

And that would be true for the shoes of a police officer who had stepped in blood as it would be for any other person wearing shoes?

Argumentative, your Honor.

Overruled.

If that was--yeah. It is likely.

Now, the mat in the car, the Bronco, it doesn't have fibers?

No.

And the brake pedal doesn't have fibers?

It's made out of rubber.

Now, you told us that you didn't swatch these items, these red stains--well, you didn't--withdrawn. You did not swatch the items that you saw on the door sill?

That's correct.

On June 14th?

Yes.

Because you were only taking representative samples?

I was taking representative samples.

Where is it in the rules of your laboratory that there's a doctrine about taking only representative samples?

I don't know if it's written anywhere, but that's the way I was trained and that's been the policy handed down and taught to every Criminalist that's worked for the Los Angeles Police Department.

Is there any document that you know of in the crime lab that talks about taking only representative samples?

I'm not aware of one.

And in terms of swatching a stain so that you only get a representative sample, is that in any document in the crime lab?

I don't know of any document to that effect.

And we're clear on this; you recall testifying that when you swatch stains in the Bronco, you didn't swatch the whole stain. You only swatched a representative sample of the stain?

I believe that was for--that wasn't for every stain, but a--one stain in particular that you were talking about.

Stains on the console?

Yes.

But as far as you know, the only document in the crime lab that instructs you about swatching for purposes of DNA testing directs the Criminalist to get as much of the stain as possible?

Misstates the testimony.

Overruled.

The collection for conventional serological or conventional serology and DNA collection are essentially the same.

You--do you recall--withdrawn. Haven't you seen a handout that gives directions on how Criminalists should swatch blood evidence?

If you could show it to me, I--I may be refreshed, but--

Do you recall you and I went through a form that had about 13 different directions on them?

You've shown a lot of things to me over the last eight days.

Okay. Now, on redirect examination, you indicated that you didn't think that you were necessarily covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual.

I believe I--

Can you cite a specific page of the transcript?

Let's do it this way.

Do you believe that you're covered by the rules in the Los Angeles Police Department manual?

Overbroad as to rules.

Overruled.

Certain aspects of the manual do pertain to the civilians, yes.

The manual as it sets forth rules on the booking and handling of evidence, does that govern you?

Haven't we gone over this already?

Well, he did it on redirect. I'm doing it fast.

Doesn't mean we have to do it again.

Well, I'll do it fast. I just have two or three questions here.

The guidelines in the general principles are applicable to us, yes.

Well, there are guidelines and general principles, but you don't feel that you have to follow those rules as written with respect to booking evidence?

And the rules say that you should book biological evidence as soon as possible?

Yes.

And in this case, you did not book by putting the items into the evidence processing--evidence control unit, the swatches from Bundy where Mr. Simpson's blood sample or the glove or the hat or any of these items, until June 16th?

Beyond the scope of the redirect, your Honor.

Overruled.

Booking the--those items of evidence by June 16th was very quick.

You--my question, sir, you did not take them to the ECU and have them stamped and book until June 16th?

That is correct.

Now, you've told us on redirect examination that no rule or procedure would be violated if you had told Andrea Mazzola to throw out some original pages of the crime scene checklist and write a new form?

Well, it's overbroad. We specified certain pages.

Overruled.

I stated that they could be rewritten.

Well, weren't you asked that there was no rule or procedure that would be violated if Miss--if you had told Miss Mazzola to throw out the original page and write a new form?

Still vague as to which page.

Overruled.

I stated something to that effect about a portion of a form, yes.

Well, was the page where Miss Mazzola had written--Miss Mazzola had written in handwriting, right, 17 as the sneakers, 18 as the blood vial and 19 as a hair from the Rockingham glove?

The one with no actual form writing on it or Xeroxing?

Yes. But it was on the back of a piece of paper that was an official form?

Yes.

Well, are you telling us that that form could have been--that original piece of paper could have been thrown out without violating any rule?